Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Thursday, 24th July 2008 Change Date

Life & Style - inside your Evening News every Thursday

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Meadows ban on cyclists 'is illegal'



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 27 March 2008
By ALAN RODEN
A LONG-STANDING ban on cyclists using paths in the Meadows may have to be scrapped – because it is illegal.
It emerged today that signs painted on the walkways to deter cyclists from quieter areas of the beauty spot could fall foul of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act.

The 2003 Act was designed to improve access to green areas for cyclists as well as walkers but its implications are only now becoming apparent.

Park paths in Glasgow have already been opened up to cyclists as a result and Edinburgh City Council is now investigating whether it needs to follow suit.

Any move to open walkways to a mix of walkers, joggers and cyclists is likely to prove controversial over fears pedestrians could be knocked over.

But cycling groups today said the relaxation of rules would encourage people to improve their behaviour.

Bikes are currently only permitted on Middle Meadow Walk, and the east-to-west routes along North Meadow Walk and South Meadow Walk. Cyclists are not supposed to use the paths that criss-cross the Meadows.

The impact of the law was revealed by council staff at a recent Friends of the Meadows meeting.

Southside and Newington Tory councillor Cameron Rose said: "This will be quite controversial for local people. Older residents, in particular, may be concerned.

"The primary issue is first to determine whether the signs are illegal – the council has to do something about this.

"Ten or 15 years ago, there was a similar debate about mountain bikes on the Pentlands.

But experience suggests that cyclists and pedestrians can co-exist without detriment."

Although the "no cycling" markings are clearly visible on the paths, some cyclists are known to ignore the rules.

There are also local anecdotes of people being knocked over by cyclists travelling too fast.

Ian Maxwell, a member of cycling pressure group Spokes, said: "By making paths more accessible, rather than having 'no entry' signs, it is hoped this will improve cyclists' behaviour, rather than make it worse."

Peng Lee Yap, chairman of Friends of the Meadows, said there would be an "inevitable conflict" between the various users of the paths. But he added: "While this is clearly a difficult issue, it was felt that the positive way forward is the approach of Spokes to improve cyclists' behaviour."

A city council spokesman said: "We will obviously arrange the signs in our parks in line with the appropriate legislation."


The full article contains 410 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 27 March 2008 10:44 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Cycling
 
1

allknowing,

27/03/2008 12:03:37
"Although the "no cycling" markings are clearly visible on the paths, some cyclists are known to ignore the rules. "

It seems to me that if there is a rule these freaks dont like, they ignore them, just like red lights, signalling etc.

Why dont they all grow up and get a car!!!or if your poor, take the bus!

2

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 12:16:49
Why was cycling banned here in the first place? No doubt on the whim of moaners and kill-joys.

The cyclists are RIGHT to ignore the restrictions. It is a pity that more people don't ignore stupid, groundless restrictions.
3

David Harrington,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 12:20:41
#2 For once I agree with you - shocking, I know, but true
4

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 12:27:41
"By making paths more accessible, rather than having 'no entry' signs, it is hoped this will improve cyclists' behaviour"

Yes, and pigs might fly!! (certainly where some cyclists are concerned).

There is a certain type of cyclist who deliberately flaunts the law, it's not just the Meadows where some cyclists ignore the law, you can see them cycling on the pavements of this town any day of the year (and these are not people of under 16 at which age it is legal to cycle on the pavements).

It can only be a matter of time before someone is killed by a pavement cyclist and the crap will probably hit the fan then.

If these notices are against the Land Reform Act then the Act needs to be changed. My experience of some cyclists is that they just don't give a damn and are downright rude and aggresive if challenged.

I would like to ask why Lothian & Borders police don't hold a blitz on pavement cyclists? They are keen enough to pick on folk who forget to wear seatbelts or who use a mobile 'phone in a car.

5

Rigsby,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 12:28:26
might have known we would get the usual rant/troll from the anti-cycling brigade. Thanks for restoring my faith in human nature #1
6

Randan,

27/03/2008 12:29:01
#1 - "Why dont they all grow up and get a car"
Pathetic and childish statement.
7

Rigsby,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 12:31:13
#4 'only a matter of time before someone is killed'

Put it in persepective - when was the last time someone was killed by a cyclist on the pavement (which I don't condone) compared to how many people die on the roads every day? L+B police have bigger issues to worry about.
8

It's heading straight for us!,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 12:33:14
#1 so cyclists choose to cycle because they are a)immature or b) cant afford the bus fare?

Which council department do you work for?

Some of the 'no cycling' signs are so badly eroded that you can hardly read them (as you whizz past at 90 miles an hour looking for old ladies to knock down :-))

If cyclists cant use these paths then who stops pedestrians walking on the VERY CLEARLY marked cycle lane running down to the Meadows?

If everyone just pays a bit of attention to the road and pedestrians especially show a bit of common sense in looking out for bikes then therese room for all

R
(can afford the bus fare and over 40 but doesnt want to cause more pollution/congestion)
9

Road Raga,

EDINBURGH 27/03/2008 12:33:21
Given that almost all of the road traffic laws are only necessary due to vehiclular traffic, I understand why certain cyclists ignore these pointless, stupid restrictions.
10

SimpleSimon2,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 12:36:42
As someone who walks through the meadows to and from work every day, I know there are plenty of cyclists already ignoring these signs and it is most certainly dangerous for me, so must be worse for oaps.

A lot of paths are full of potholes so people don't always walk in stright lines and the cyclist weave to avoid them also.

I think the council will need to widen a lot of paths. They should also impose a speed limit on the cyclists. Crossing middle meadow walk is often a scary experience.
11

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

Newington 27/03/2008 12:40:19
I've been cycling on all the paths of the Meadows for 25 years and haven't so much as scared a pedestrian. All that's needed is the common sense to slow down when passing and be willing to go out on the grass to get around large groups.
12

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 12:44:04
#5 & #6

I am most certainly not anit-cyclist, I just wish that they would cycle in the right places and not on the pavements/pedestrian walkways. The plain truth, though you may not like it, is that they are breaking the law (as it stands). Drivers/car passengers don't get away with it, neither should errant cyclists, but then it's 'Green' isn't it!!

#10 Absolutely correct
13

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 12:45:16
#11 The problem is that they are not all as responsible and mannerly as your good self.
14

,

27/03/2008 12:48:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
15

,

27/03/2008 12:49:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
16

Keebo,

27/03/2008 12:55:29
#8
'pedestrians especially show a bit of common sense in looking out for bikes'

So now it is the pedestrians responsibility to look out for the psycho cyclist is it. I do not drive and take public transport when not walking and I have also had the misfortune to be knocked over by a cyclist jumping on to the pavement to avoid red lights. By all means allocate specific areas for them to travel on if it keeps them away from main roads but also let them foot some of the bills. We all know that this will never happen because as someone mentioned earlier it is the 'green' card being played.
17

Niadh,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 12:58:50
#1 I have to agree with 6 and 8.
You really shouldn't tar everyone with the same brush. That goes for you as well #15.
I take it from your comments allknowing that you're a well off, overweight over 40 year old.
Personally I am better off financially and physically from cycling for not have to pay bus fares or parking charges. It's a good form of exercise.

#15 The only time cars get damaged by me is when the arrogant, ignorant gits driving them are inconsiderate enough not to acknowledge my existence on the road and hence leave me enough room to get by when they get held up by traffic.

As a cyclist, motorcyclist and car driver I always try to show courtesy and respect to other road users except where they are putting me at risk. At this point i do whatever I feel necessary to put as much distance between us as possible.
18

Rigsby,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 12:58:57
#15 okay generalising are we?

all car drivers :-
don't have insurance
speed
talk on mobile phones
park in cycle lanes/double yellows/bus stops
leave fog lights on when its not foggy
don't use their mirrors
jump red lights
stop in the advance bicycle stop line
ignore bus/taxi/cycle signs
drive in the green lanes at inappropriate times
don't drive in the green lanes at appropriate times
stop in box junctions
park on the pavement
queue across junctions/pedestrian crossings
turn without signalling
park on the zigzags at pedestrian crossings
etc etc etc
19

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

27/03/2008 13:03:18
1. Its quite sad that people think they convey wealth to others because they have a car.

I've always ignored these signs anyway.

Anyway , for the love of god , visit holland sometime where there are actually more bikes than people (most people have a runaround and a smart bike for .. I dunno dinner parties or something).

Apart from a few (ok , a lot) of bikes getting slung in canals it all works prefectly well.

Just behave yourselves and dont knock down grannies.
20

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

27/03/2008 13:05:03
Why dont you all grow up and get a Tank.
21

Ron D,

Enybru 27/03/2008 13:12:51
Anything that makes life difficult for car drivers gets my vote. I'm particularly enjoying the tram "chaos" - it can't go on long enough.
22

Rigsby,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 13:24:53
#21 I second that
23

druidh,

edinburgh 27/03/2008 13:35:01
Could we also have the legal situation as regards cycling in Holyrood Park cleared up? The "local rules" also seem to fall foul of the LR(S)A.
24

Mr H 2u,

Embra 27/03/2008 13:35:57
Cyclists are, remarkably, the only group of people, outwith Italin tourists, who are ruder than car drivers.

Which is why several get accidentally knocked off their bikes when cycling through red lights / green men in my part of the world.

Gits.
25

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

27/03/2008 13:46:13
Nothing like a bit of generalising in an evening tabloid to keep all us humans at loggerheads eh.
26

mrmoneypenny,

27/03/2008 13:46:53
I cycle through the meadows to work and i always go down these ' no cycling routes'. People think they are the law when you do, especially dog owners who 2 mintes earlier let their dog p#ss and sh#te on the pavement, Edinburgh Uni students who walk 6 a row, until they realise your not stopping.

Also, car drivers who talk about laws, have,nt seen a red light not driven through yet.
27

Salvatori,

27/03/2008 13:54:56
There are only about 4 paths which are banned to cyclists in the meadows, to which cyclists can get to their end points by alternative routes in a couple of extra minutes anyway, if that, so what is the fuss about? Just cycle the extra distance.

As for #26 yep, you must be one of those annoying beggarsweaving up jawbone walk between pedestrians on a busy morning, when all you had to do was cycle a wee bit futher up Melville Drive to go up the main cycling lane. Think you'll find people are perfectly entitled to walk six in a row up a walking pathway, numpty.
28

Farky,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 13:55:48
Silly rule not allowing cyclists to use certain paths. As long as they are careful and all that.

However, cyclists do need to observe the highway code far more than many of them currently do. I am seeing more cycling on pavements than ever before, and also seeing more people cycling through red lights! If you want the respect of other road users then you must observe and ahere to those rule yourself. Simple as that!!!

I am a cyclist and I hate to be thought of as a wreckless road user because so many other cyclists choose to do as they like!
29

alec splode,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 13:58:05
#1; #14 & #15

Bet you're all looking forward to the schools going back.
30

Rigsby,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 13:59:48
#24 ah, more generalisations.

When I'm being a pedestrian I will deliberately get in the way of cyclists if they are heading through a red light - they should know better.

On the other hand - when I'm on my bike - if a pedestrian steps in to the road in front of me anywhere other than the appropriate crossing then I will 'ask them politely' to watch out or hurry up - or give them a blast from my air-horn. Same goes if they cross the road when the red man is showing.
31

FiBop,

Málaga 27/03/2008 14:11:24
#17 Haha you make me laugh with this "I take it from your comments allknowing that you're a well off, overweight over 40 year old" Actualy I'm half that age, not so well off but extremly fit.. and I do cycle but up mountains where there are no people to get in the way or drivers who do get v pi*ssd off with cyclists on the road where they just should not be especialy where half of them just do not pay attention to where they are going and cycle at 2mph like they got all day to faff about!!! Arrh it's so frustrating!!!!!!!
32

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

27/03/2008 14:23:11
31 You cycle up Mountians ? Are you mental or Ben Fogle ?
33

Rigsby,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 14:23:27
#31 at least your generalisations have fallen from ALL to 'half of them' :)
34

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 14:24:09
#7 Rigsby

"L+B police have bigger issues to worry about"

The police are supposed to apply the law without fear or favour when they see or are informed that a law(s) are/have been broken. It seems to me that the application of the 'no cycling on pavements' law is being ignored by the police to the peril of the rest of us. In other words they are not doing their jobs properly.

While the number of deaths due to pedestrians being struck on pavements by cyclists is not high (at the moment) as this illegal practice increases, obviously the numbers of deaths and injuries will rise (simple statistics).

If cyclists don't want to use the roads (and goodness knows the roads are dangerous places) why doesn't the government/local authorities introduce a bicycle excise
tax which could be used to build more cycle tracks for use by cyclists only?

Also, if cyclists are to be allowed to cycle on pavements (by law, should that ever be brought to pass), then they should be forced to carry third party insurance and be made to display a registration plate for recognition purposes, i.e. they should be registered just as cars are now.




35

Salvatori,

27/03/2008 14:26:29
32 - Cycling up mountins is not extreme enough for Ben Fogle, sprinting up mountains in tandem with James Cracknell on the back of a prize winning St.Bernard is more his style.
36

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

27/03/2008 14:29:02
Sprinting up mountains while INSIDE James's Cracknell would seem more plausible.

"It's a tight , death defying entrance full of bats guano but I think i can just make it"
37

Salvatori,

27/03/2008 14:33:43
36 - Mario - beside myself with laughter. Cheers pal. Nothing brings about TV rage like a dose of the Fogle.
38

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 14:38:58
#35 Salvtori, #36 Mario

Best posts of the day, still can't stop laughing!!

Cheers folks.
39

Rigsby,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 14:39:20
#34 thanks for taking the time to read my post

The police are indeed supposed to apply the law without fear or favour but in these budget restricted times they cannot deal with every single crime committed. The number of people using mobile phones while driving are in my view more likely to cause more serious accidents yet the police only have occasional targetted campaigns to deal with the problem.

What evidence is there that cycling on pavements is on the increase other than the 'feeling' from other Evening News readers? Show me the statistics.

Your cycle excise just does not wash - do you think all your car tax goes to the transport budget? Fuel tax? No. I pay many forms of tax (including road tax for car and motorcycle) and the govmt uses it how it see fit. We all pay taxes for things we don't use (NHS dentists is a good example...)

As for insurance - it is available and optional - if you insist on cycling on the pavements then sooner or later you are going to be sued by someone employing the services of the ambulance chasing personal injury claims lawyers.

I'll stick to the roads thanks.
40

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

27/03/2008 14:43:38
Ah, good old Ben..

I actually miss that show. set to become a cult classic!
41

ejstubbs,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 14:56:04
#7: "when was the last time someone was killed by a cyclist on the pavement" March 2006, in Cornwall, as far as I can tell: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/7098383.stm

As you say, compare that with the number of cyclists killed on the roads by careless drivers.
42

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 15:01:11
#39 Rigsby - thanks for your response.

"What evidence is there that cycling on pavements is on the increase other than the 'feeling' from other Evening News readers? Show me the statistics"

I can't show any statistics due to tha fact that the police aren't prosecuting these people, although A&E at various hospitals might show a different story and would probably be more accurate.

Please believe me though, I see too many people pavement cycling as I travel/walk through the town (I don't own a car nowadays) and it's really just a matter of common sense and observation to see what is happening.

Like so many things in today's society, because nothing is being done about it there is an element of the population who will continue to abuse/take advantage.

Also, this appears (to some extent) to be an Edinburgh phenomenon, I have just been taking about this to a work colleague who was a student at Oxford or Cambridge where bikes are very popular and where (according to source) the students (freshers) are allowed the first couple of weeks to cycle everywhere without anything being done, then the police come and 'have a word' Do it again and you'll get done!

Also, more people are commenting (adversly) on this very thing (and not just EEN posters like ourselves).
The practice really does seem to have increased markedly over that last 4 - 5 years.

By the way, I meant the cycle excise to be used specifically for cycle tracks, maybe I wasn't very clear.

Cheers,

Peter

43

mrmoneypenny,

27/03/2008 15:01:16
The car lobby think the road is for them only, though some do have respect for other car drivers, and some e can even read the road ahead, and not just a 3 feet circumference around their car.
44

mrmoneypenny,

27/03/2008 15:05:19
#42 May i say now LOL

'I can't show any statistics due to tha fact that the police aren't prosecuting these people, although A&E at various hospitals might show a different story and would probably be more accurate.'

Show us the A&E statistics, people like you make stuff up in your own mind.

'Please believe me though,'

'Also, this appears (to some extent) to be an Edinburgh phenomenon, '

How does that make sense? It either is or it is not! ( something in brackets to mae it look like i thought of something or than my small world of Edinburgh, as its the only place that exists as its the only place i saw a bike.)


45

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 15:09:29
#44 mrmoneypenny

My you are a bitter wee soul.

Did someone pinch your bike, or did the police charge you for cycling on the pavements?

46

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

27/03/2008 15:10:40
I'm suprised that some of you can work out how to use the toilet correctly.
47

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 15:18:08
Mario,

We took lessons from Ben Fogle.

Cheers
48

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

27/03/2008 15:19:32
A death defying totter on the edge of a sheer drop manky precipice.
49

Rigsby,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 15:22:59
#42 'various hospitals might show'
Still no actual statistics though. Just because lots of people say the problem is getting worse doesn't make it so. I totally agree that it is a problem but until I see some hard facts you cannot back up your argument.

I understood your comments on cycle excise, I think you missed the point in my reply. Why should a specific tax on a specific group be used for a specific purpose. That is not the way the UK taxation system works. If I was to take your example further then we should be taxing children who use the swings in the local public park for the upkeep of the swings as they are the only one who use them.
50

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 15:27:16
#42 Rigsby

Next time I'm knocked down by a cyclist I shall respectfully request said information upon my delivery to hospital.

Cheers
51

Rigsby,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 15:29:50
are #46 and #48 automatically generated spam posts? They seem to have no relevance to the topic in hand. Just waiting for the next post from The Genuine Mario Antoinette trying to sell me performance enhancing pharmaceuticals
52

Rigsby,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 15:33:30
#50 next time? So it's happened before? I'm sorry to hear that.
Did the cyclist get charged?
53

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 15:39:14
#52 Rigsby

Yes, I've been struck twice (something about lightening?).

No, no one was charged becuase in one case the cyclist wasn't anything more than a kid and therefore wouldn't have been charged. In the other case the guy went off like a bat-out-off-hell. Both impacts were from behind with no warning.

Do you really think Mario is behind these "performance enhancing pharmaceuticals", because I get these damned e-mails as well (most embarassing, or do I mean embrassing?).

Cheers

54

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 15:41:50
#52 Rigsby

Re #53 for "embrassing", please read as embracing (I'm tiring).
55

Rambo_the_Jambo,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 15:47:48
# 18 Rigsby

You've just listed the Taxi Driver Code of Misconduct!
56

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

27/03/2008 16:15:54
Look , tell your wife to stop pestering me about the size of your manhoods and i will stop sending those emails.
57

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

27/03/2008 16:18:16
Anyway, I've already eplained the answer to this particular problem :-

Show respect for fellow human beings and behave yourselves.
58

Anonym,

cycling across the meadows 27/03/2008 16:27:42
I love the caption: ON YER BIKE: Many cyclists already flout the rules banning them from Meadows paths – much to the dismay of joggers and walkers.

Yes indeed, I always see joggers and walkers looking utterly dismayed to see somebody actually riding a bicycle! (Not).

Peter at #34 You GIT!
59

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 16:28:41
#56 Mario

Your'e confessing to being the sender of certain e-mails?

I thought it might be MrMoneyPenny who could possibly be the love-child of James Bond and MissMoneyPenny (might account for his bitterness, nobody wanted him as a child?).

Anyway, he is already a self-confessed lawbreaker see #26 re cycling on the prohibitted lanes in the meadows.

Cheers
60

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 16:31:47
#58 Anonym,cycling across the meadows

"Peter at #34 You GIT!"

Anonym, please clarify and if possible substantiate.

61

Captain Planet,

27/03/2008 16:43:34
They should put up speed limit signs for the cyclists. If they're restricted to 5mph, there would be very little risk of a collision.
62

calum,

27/03/2008 16:47:52
#9 - Road Raga -"Given that almost all of the road traffic laws are only necessary due to vehiclular traffic, I understand why certain cyclists ignore these pointless, stupid restrictions."
And once again, you illustrate what little you do know about road traffic laws which embrace everything from horses, mud on road, CYCLISTS, design, signs, bridges, pedestrians, CYCLISTS, carts, trailers, lights, CYCLISTS, road surfaces, closures, processions, limits, CYCLISTS,....... and in actual fact, legislation relating to vehicular traffic is a fairly small part of "road traffic laws" (sic).
63

Niadh,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 17:06:07
#31 my comment that you have taken so badly to heart was not aimed at you but rather the obnoxious allknowing!

As far as the highway code is concerned did you know that it is not legally enforcable?!?!
I got that amusing tidbit from a copper that I had called to deal with a car driving who hit me by driving into me when I was in a bike advance lane (section 178 of highway code governed by [Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10, 36(1) & 43(2)])
As far as i know the procurator fiscal took no action as no-one was injured.
Some signal that sends out.
64

,

27/03/2008 17:11:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
65

,

27/03/2008 17:16:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
66

Anonym,

cycling up a one way street 27/03/2008 17:29:59
Chris at #65, please clarify... under what circumstances you deem it appropriate to accidentally introduce your umbrella between the front spokes of mrmoneypenny's bicycle? You do realise that cycling is about to become legal on ALL the Meadows paths?

I hope you don't accidentally get your head kicked in by an irate cyclist!
67

Chris L,

marchmont 27/03/2008 17:43:46
the jawbone walk is a daily walk for myself and I find the no cycling rule understandable, yet easily manageable to allow both to co-exist.
why not adopt a similar approach to middle meadow walk with a cycle lane and a pedestrian lane.

I do get frustrated when i almost get knocked over by some daft student who can do everything BUT read warnings
68

Anonym,

straight line through the Meadows 27/03/2008 18:01:22
Pedestrians should show more consideration and keep off the paths because not all bicycles are equiped with all terrain tyres like mine, and hence are not suitable for taking onto the grass.

If a path is to be pedestrian access only then the pedestrians should be made to wear license plates and should pay path tax, to pay for the paths which nobody else uses.
69

Speedy Gonzales,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 18:07:48
#27
I have to say after reading this post it seems YOU are the numpty.
Not talking about cycling here, but why/how is it acceptable for any group of people to walk 6 abrest on a narrow path and not cede way to those coming the other way or from behind at a faster pace? Though you don't type this exactly, I 'ass'ume this is what you mean.
I walk these paths and others often, and find it quite laughable how 'groups' of people feel their need to maintain 'chit-chat' formation is more important than your need to refrain from walking along the verge and the accompanying dog doo doo.
I think if we look at all these posts on these articles that appear on a regular basis, all we need and are asking for is respect for and from fellow road/path users, across the board.
70

Anonym,

almost knocked Chris L over 27/03/2008 18:15:35
so Chris L... you almost got knocked over... meaning you didn't actually get knocked over, i.e. a cyclist passed beside you! Oh how incredibly dangerous that must have been.

Got to love those folks that complain about cyclists ignoring one way streets. Tell me, are you worried that the car, lorry, bus, going the right way up the street is not going to have enough room to get by? What's the problem, eh?

71

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

Newington 27/03/2008 18:45:32
I was once cycling down Waverley Bridge when a dozy pedestrian stepped out without looking and knocked me off my bike. He was OK, but I had an arm injury for months.

Pedestrians are a menace and should either stick to the pavements or get road insurance and wear a licence plate. There should be an exam before they're let outdoors at all.

72

eDUCATIon,

27/03/2008 19:33:24
While Im not a cyclist (Im far too lazy) I cannot see what the problem is. Can people not look out for each other while theyre on these paths? Is it really that hard and testing for one another. If it is then the human race is well and truly doomed!

Theres something strange that happens to man when he gets behind the wheel of his/hers 4 wheeled vehicle, something bizarre, I see it day in day out on my daily travels.....they just cant take seeing someone else overtaking them on 2 wheels especially in the town and getting to wherever they are going quicker than them.

Lets all grow up please.

73

wolfette,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 20:17:43
"But cycling groups today said the relaxation of rules would encourage people to improve their behaviour."

You mean that they'd carry on as before, but now they'd be *legally* cycling on the same paths? (and still knocking us pedestrians on our backsides from time to time as they whizz past at speed)
74

Road Raga,

EDINBURGH 27/03/2008 20:44:43
#73 I use the meadows every day, and have never in 10 years of doing so seen any pedestrian 'knocked on their backsides' by a cyclist, 'speeding' (whatever that means) or not. Methinks you exagerate a tad.
75

Jingsitsme,

EDINBURGH 27/03/2008 21:06:29
Cyclists and pedestrians manage on Bruntsfield Links so why not in Meadows.

Runners are sometimes more dangerous as they run with their music on in a world of their own.

So stop moaning.....
76

Cramondo,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 21:26:13
Where are the statistics showing that cycles cause more, and more serious, injuries than cars?

The level of rage directed towards cyclists in this discussion is out of all proportion to the "harm" that cycling does.

I've walked around this city for more than 50 years, and never been harmed by a cyclist.
77

Plantagenet,

27/03/2008 21:55:06
Why should cyclists be allowed to whizz along public footpaths in public parks like the meadows? after all the parks are there for the public (on foot) to enjoy leisure time, take exercise (walking), play sports, etc. the cyclists using the meadows are not there for leisure, they are taking a short cut to their destination, why can't they use the roads like all other road users have to do, after all a car driver would end up in court if he or she decided to drive down middle meadow walk.
78

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 22:28:59
In very bad traffic jams you can take our car across the meadows too - it cuts off about 20 mins off your journey ... ! remember the 4x4 if it is muddy though ... !
79

Artemis,

27/03/2008 23:05:13
Before I get into the debate, I'd like to say that I think I'm in love with Mario Antoinette and I Love To Eat Sellotape, and by the way, where is Eustace "Gripper" Almonds these days?

#77 - you think cyclists should be on the roads instead of the Meadows, motorists think cyclists should be off the roads. You can't all have your own way.

There are thoughtless selfish irresponsible cyclists, there are thoughtless selfish irresponsible pedestrians and there are thoughtless selfish irresponsible motorists. And there are careful, sensible, considerate cyclists, pedestrians and motorists. Until now, cyclists shouldn't have been on the no cycling paths - some of them did, but not all of them. But I've seen equally selfish behaviour from pedestrians in the Meadows - wandering along the marked cycle path, earphones in, oblivious to bike bells ringing. I saw one woman allow her toddler to pedal a trike very slowly along the cycle path while her school age child lay across the cycle path. I've seen people walking dogs on long leads stretched right across the cycle path. I've seen people on the footpath walking so close to the edge of the cycle path that cyclists coming in opposite directions haven't been able to pass each other, and cyclists have had no room to swerve to avoid the numerous dangerous potholes on the eastern part of North Meadow Walk. I even saw one group of idiots standing nattering, with half a dozen dogs, right in the middle of the cycle path, who absolutely refused to move even though I gave them plenty of notice of my approach by ringing my bell - they just stood there, looking at me and continuing their conversation, forcing me onto the footpath to avoid them.

Some people are selfish rude idiots, regardless of their mode of transport.
80

(-_-),

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 23:09:58
I was just wondering... does this Law allow me to roam in and watch the Lady Boys when they next take over part of the East Meadows.
[*_*]
81

Rob M,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 23:39:34
Are the paths not classified as footpaths/pavements and in a similar manner to footpaths/pavements next to roads is it not illegal for cyclists to use them?
82

Rob M,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 23:48:48
Or putting it another way if cyclists are allowed to use the footpaths/pavements of the Meadows are they then not entitled to use all the footpaths/pavements of Edinburgh?
83

eyesaresoreus,

Lothian 28/03/2008 01:37:31
The cycling on footways was controlled by The Edinburgh Corporation Order 1967, making it an offence for anyone over 12 years old cycling on the footway. This was repealed in 1982 when the Civic Goverment (Scotland) Act was introduced, with no offence being created for cyclists on the footway. I know of no other Act, Staute or bylaw making it an offence in Edinburgh.

Which makes the only offence one of vandalism by the local authority painting on the footway in the Meadows which will have to be corrected at public expense.

The councilor or administrator responsible should be brought to task for failing to research properly whether it was lawful for this to be done and he/she/they should personally pay for the repair
84

R Corbett,

Robert Corbett (Edinburgh) 28/03/2008 03:27:09

Cycling on the pavement is anti-social. End of story. Why does this city put up with it? Twice pavement cyclists have collided with me, and I regard it as assualt. Not once have I been hit by a car that was breaking the law.

Cyclists - grow up, and stop acting like idiots
85

Artemis,

28/03/2008 07:42:41
#81 - no, and one of the cycle paths in the Meadows is an official National Cycle Route

#82 - grow up and stop making generalisations
86

paulr,

edinburgh 28/03/2008 08:59:29
When walking on the pavement or walkways of the city, pedestrian areas, we should not have to constantly be on the lookout for morons on bikes.
Most accidents involving cyclists are caused by cyclists, everyone has to look out for them but they take no responsibility for their own actions.
It's high time action was taken to force cyclists to face the consequences of their actions.
87

Norman,

28/03/2008 10:01:05
The cyclistas getting their way again? Measures have been made to let them have their own paths, but this isn't enough?

I'd say that if the signs are illegal, so is cycling on pavements, therefore, there should be no bikes seen unless on the public roads.

88

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 28/03/2008 10:52:54
#64 Anonym

Thanks for getting back Anonym and for an interesting response.

The reason I suggest a registration system and third party insurance to be imposed on cyclists is that following an accident as things stand now the cyclist (if the guilty party) can simply ride off leaving the victim with no chance of being able to seek compensation from the party causing the injury.

#Rigsby suggested in one of his responses that insurers might pursue the offender and sue them for compensation. This is fine as far as it goes, but you still have the problem of identifying the cyclist who has now probably left the scene, hence the need for plates of some kind.

As for cyclists causing pedestrians little harm in a collision, that is sometimes just not the case as my ex-wife is to some extent disabled and can no longer work after she was struck by a cyclist on the Cramond foreshore some 5 years ago - another case where the cyclist left the scene rapidly without leaving any contact details.

Drivers are required by law to report to the police, any accidents involving injury - cyclists should be required to do the same (maybe that is already the law, but I've never heard of any of them doing so).

Getting back to the article, surely the 'spirit' of the Land Reform Act was to allow the public reasonable access to the countryside? Some smarty-pants has just picked up on one of the finer points in an effort to allow cycling on all footpaths in the Meadows.

I and many of the other posters here object to cyclists using pavements - it is as far as I am aware illegal and should remain so.

Cheers,

Peter (aka 'The Complete GIT')



89

Voice o reason,

sumwhur ee deh ken 28/03/2008 11:32:55
Aw this jist makes mei fair scunnered ee ken.

Av cycled roon the Meadows fir years an years an no hit onybody. Ah didna even ken thut ee coodna cycle on sum paths. Ah s'pose ah wis ower busy lookin tae sei whur ah wis gaun ti reed the writin pented oan the path.

Cooncilurs=Numpties if ee ask mei!
90

531 Biker,

NQ 28/03/2008 12:37:40
Ah, it's so refreshing to see the usual anti-cyclist rantings.

I drive, have a motorbike and (4)bicycle(s). I do about 5000 miles a year by pushbike commuting from Fife to Edinburgh, am not poor - do it because I love it, keeps me fit and helps the environment.

I don't go through red lights, don't ride on the pavement, I stop at pedestrian crossings, as do most of the people I cycle with.

We have a perfectly good set of cyclepaths in this country - they are called roads and I recommend cyclists to use them. After all, we pay for them through our general taxation

Peter, I wonder why it is you consider roads to be dangerous - certainly not the behaviour of motorists who are never inattentive, aggressive, careless- surely? I mean on my morning commute I've never seen a motorist go through a red light, jump onto the pavement to squeeze round a left corner, speed, pass too close, drive while reading, texting, combing, make-upping (if there is such a thing) and in one memorable instance receiving pleasure in a very dangerous way from his female passenger!

There are prats in all walks of life, and all modes of transport. For what it's worth my major irritation on cyclepaths is mountain bikers who have wide bars and little bike control (see we all have our prejudices- drop bars rule).

I exercise care passing pedestrians and dogs, even those unrestrained in a public place (even pedestrians break the law) and generally am pleasant to everybody (cycling puts you in a good mood)

As to the subject of theis article, I have no issue with cyclists using paths designed or allocated for cycling, but would not break the law. I'd be happy if the police cracked down on pavement cyclists RLJ'ers etc and would be happy if they spent a bit of time also dealing with errant motorists and irresponsible pedestrians.

live and let live!

J (on a black bike giveing everybody a wide berth!)
91

R Corbett,

28/03/2008 12:40:17
#89 - why do you talk like a rustic bumpkin? You probably can't operate a bicycle, and were riding through the meadows on donkey.
92

geekpie,

forfar 28/03/2008 16:51:30
re caption on photo at top: "dismay of joggers and walkers"

I'm a jogger and walker as well as a cyclist and the cyclists cause me no dismay. Lazy journalism.
93

A Clamper,

Edinburgh 28/03/2008 16:54:47
There is a problem in the Meadows,but they're not called cyclists,they're called muggers.
94

R Corbett,

robert corbett (edinburgh) 28/03/2008 19:09:09
#92 -

with all due respect, The Meadows covers a much smaller area than Forfar, so your contention that cyclists aren't a threat might apply to the bonnie highlands, but it doesn't apply to Edinburgh.

#93 - there aren't any daytime muggings in the meadows, but there are plenty of cyclistic mujihadeen, so your comment might apply to the hours of darkness.
95

Enrich,

Edinburgh 28/03/2008 21:34:23
I walk along these paths in the Meadows in the mornings. They are not wide enough for cyclists as well as joggers and walkers. The Meadows is a busy place between eight and nine. The cyclists do go too fast (so fast they are gone before I can usefully shout at them). The paths would need to be widened and split before cyclists could use them as well.
96

Shaun McDonald,

Edinburgh 28/03/2008 22:38:42
I think that cyclists need dedicated cycle paths, whereby they can get their speed up and get somewhere quickly without having to lookout for pedestrians wandering on their side of the path, or cars parked in the cycle lane, or buses stopped in at bus stops.
97

R Corbett,

Rab Corbett (Edinburgh) 29/03/2008 11:44:51
I think cycling should be banned within the city. Cycling clearly isn't good for people, it turns them into mouth-frothing Hezbollah

 

Comment on this Story